The most 'aha' connection there was that a shocking percentage of black men have felony convictions of some sort or another, and we deny felons the right to vote in most states. Jim Crow indeed.
Only while incarcerated.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-v...
A couple of States even allow inmates to vote while incarcerated. In my now-home State, inmates are encouraged to vote and sometimes politicians will even go campaign inside the prison. That's pretty rare, but has happened.
So, it's a temporary loss in most cases. Notably, Maine allows inmates to vote and Maine is overwhelmingly white. Vermont is the same way. In my quest for more information, I found some commentary about that aspect.
Being overwhelmingly white is probably part of the reason; if you don't have a visible black underclass to subjugate, you don't take steps to subjugate them. In discussing the thesis of felon disenfranchisement as part of “the New Jim Crow”, pointing out that states without a notable visible black population don't engage in disenfranchisement is in line with that thesis.
Ah, and in the paragraph underneath that table:
Even in states where ex-offenders automatically regain the right to vote upon completion of their sentence, the process of re-registering to vote often is difficult. One reason is the complexity of the laws and processes surrounding disenfranchisement. In some cases, it is difficult to determine whose rights can be restored. This can vary in some states according to the date of the crime, the conviction, or the release from prison, or the nature of the crime. The complex restoration process also can be daunting. It often involves lengthy paperwork, burdensome documentation, and the involvement and coordination of several state agencies
This, again, is why Jim Crow is an apt comparison. It's a web of rules that all together add up to a system of control.
They are suggesting that prison, even today, is equivalent to slavery. There is injustice within the modern prison system, but prison is not slavery, at least in the right context it is a place for punishment and rehabilitation.
Sure prisons make a profit off their prisoners, but those profits are nothing like those obtained by slavery, it's an extreme exaggeration and the problem with the justice system isn't just race, if someone wants to suggest that.
removal of slavery as a punishment
What is actually being proposed here?
To say we "never quit doing slavery" is to ignore the massive improvements and lives dedicated to get rid of actual, you know, slavery.
Are prisons really profitable though? Do they produce anything of real value from this free labor ?
Are private companies generating significant profit off of cheap prison labor ? Am I buying something from a walmart shelve made from prison labor ?
Yep.
A quick google search with that very question finds lots of entries, many of course with an axe to grind. The Economist is rather dispassionate on the subject though: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21718897-idaho-...
But if you interact with the government, go to McDonalds, etc you're using prison labor. Whole Foods too (http://theweek.com/articles/630907/corporate-america-secret-...)
I said "yep" because I figured you were asking a general question; in the specific case Walmart's position is that they don't use prison labor (but plenty of web sites will tell you it's not true. Here's Huffpo: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmart-prison-labo...).
This link is pretty good but requires a bit more epistemological digging: https://www.cagedbirdmagazine.com/single-post/2017/03/28/50-...
Nobody is saying "only" black people are being incarcerated. They're saying that incarceration is used as a tool to perpetuate many of the same outcomes as slavery. Which is trivially verifiable, if you look at the respective incarceration rates by race.
> they're being incarcerated explicitly for cheap labor
Virtually all prisoners are required to work for what amounts to as little as $.10/hour. $1/hour is considered an incredibly good wage for a prison job. Prisoners are, by design, excluded from minimum wage laws. This is not limited to private prisons; it includes inmates at state-run and federal prisons too.
In California, about a third of the people fighting the recent and ongoing wildfires are prisoners, generally making about $1/hour or less. The maximum they can make is $2.56. Again, this burden largely falls on black and other non-white people, because they're incarcerated at much higher rates and for much longer sentences for the same crimes.
Yet the theory breaks down once you look at a breakdown of race, gender, and SES.
There's plenty of research debunking this claim, which is a myth generally propagated by groups with explicit white supremacist agendas.
This assumes that incarceration rates should be equal for all races, which probably shouldn't be the case. There's a correlation between low socioeconomic status and incarceration. Black Americans tend to have a lower socioeconomic status. Murder rates are also much higher among blacks than other races in America.
> Prisoners are, by design, excluded from minimum wage laws.
Right. Prisoners are being exploited, but that's not why they're being imprisoned. They're being imprisoned because of drugs, violence, and thievery/burglary for the most part.
It's not hard to look up that google maps census dot map. And then go find prisons in Google Maps and find it on the census map. Might be pretty surprising what you see... then again, might not.
Hint: https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/ Turn overlays. Go to Indianapolis, then look to the West side towards Avon and Danville. There's a dense green block (green dots = Black people) due south of Avon. Now, go look in Google Maps as to what's there.
Wash, rinse and repeat all across the US. You want evidence? There's pretty telling evidence right there.
Hell, I would go over the comment limit on even an abstract on this topic. We're talking 300+ years of history just in the US and colonies.
No, the real reason here why I'm being downvoted is because of a popularity contest. It certainly doesn't have to do with content, at least here. But some people are considered "unpopular". So we see rapid point swings and -1's. To me, its just some of the backward-ness how this community works. Every community has something like this. Grain/block of salt, and all.
By that I don't mean "ignore other people", only their effect on your comment score/karma. You should listen to their arguments nonetheless.
That's the problem with "Downvotes" in the way they're done here. Legitimate discourse, albeit unpopular will attract downvotes. And so will unrelated offtopic garbage (Spam, 1 word replies, crazy rantings ala TempleOS).
The end result to both "unpopular" material and "spam" is the same - hidden. Simply put, -1s = losing right to talk and be seen. So yeah, I am pretty disappointed in the community, and I have a justifiable right to be.
The HN community is what it is. It has certain norms and behaviors. By participating, you're part of it. If it doesn't operate in a way you prefer and you'd like to continue to contribute, be the change you want. Behave in the ways you want. I encourage you to do so! That said, if you want to be confrontational and argumentative rather than looking for points of agreement and teasing out more nuanced differences, I think you're likely to continue to see pushback on HN. In some sense, such behavior can be as corrosive as spam.